Writing a book will almost kill you. By the end, you’ll be exhausted, brain dead, and filled with a bubbling sense of anxiety. I recently finished up my first book, and here are a few takeaways from the ordeal that can be applied to pretty much any large scale project.

Some people swear by Wikipedia. Others swear at it. What about editors?

We did a quick survey to find out generally what editors think. We also asked what their editorial policies and practices are with regard to Wikipedia. Do they cite it as a source? Do they allow quotes from it?

Some editors come down solidly for Wikipedia, while others are firmly against using it. But most editors fall somewhere in between.

Reviewers are tasked with the daunting challenge of critically assessing a work’s artistic merit, and determining whether a book is worth readers’ valuable time. They are often also expected to predict — or influence — a novel’s future, an assignment that may be impossible to fulfill with complete accuracy. Which is one reason why the art of the negative review has been called into question recently — not only do writers need our support, there’s also often a dissonance between critical reception and, say, Goodreads’ crowd-sourced opinions. The Goldfinch is just one recent example of a title that failed to garner the support of top reviewers, but charmed book lovers (not to mention the 2014 Pulitzer judges) nevertheless.

Donna Tartt was preceded by a slew of talented writers whose works were initially snubbed by critics. Fitzgerald’s Gatsby (y’know — the Great one?) was originally panned as “obviously unimportant,” and Brave New World was once said to be “heavy-handed propaganda.” Yikes! Below are 12 classic books that once received bad reviews: